Second Account Experiment: Feedback

[Aquinas]

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8442&p=161997#p161990

First account: Farsun - Dorvik (http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=14105)
Second account: AuditBDF - Beitenyu (http://classic.particracy.net/viewuser.php?userid=40336)

Establish a republic in Beitenyu, conduct some religious RP that I think has been lacking and perhaps work on some economics for the northern part of Majatra.

This explanation is rather vague, and I notice you have not even given your party a name or filled in its description. For the sake of transparency, would it be okay to ask for some more information regarding your plans for this second account?

Moderation will make decisions about second accounts and will make whatever enquiries we need to help us make that decision. We do not need other players to ask questions of this kind in this thread.

I am disappointed by James's officious and abrasive response to me above.

It is already known there have been problems recently with Auditorii's RPing, particularly in relation to his godmodding with the Northern Council and combining the RP of two nations he already controls, Dorvik and Ostland, in a controversial attempt to bolster the military rankings of both. These problems, and some others, were raised here, by the way, but never received the courtesy of a proper Moderation response, or even the basic courtesy of an acknowledgement from Auditorii himself.

I have previously raised concerns re: Auditorii and second accounts only a little over a week ago when he applied for a second account in Hulstria. On that occasion, James responded normally/appropriately, acknowledging my post and promising to discuss the issues with Vesica. This makes it all the more surprising to me that when I raised my concerns today about his application for Beiteynu, he told me that only Moderators are allowed to ask questions about second account applications. This is not something stated in the rules, and as I say, this was not mentioned to me on the earlier occasion when I raised an issue.

The question I asked, simply requesting information about Auditorii's plans for his second account request, was perfectly laudable, given how obviously vague his explanation was, and also given his proposed second account does not include either a proper party name or a party description. Other players applying on that thread have been asked exactly the same question (often by Auditorii himself), and indeed have had their second account requests delayed until they have provided a satisfactory outline of their plans (again, often by Auditorii himself). Given the clear concerns regarding Auditorii, and also given Beiteynu is in the same region of the game map as Malivia, where I play, I do feel it was legitimate for me to ask the question I did.

It is also noteworthy that before he became a Moderator, James himself has raised questions in relation to second accounts, and in particular, in relation to player-Moderators and second accounts. See, for example, here, here and here. In relation to those posts, I would meekly suggest the "challenge" I made earlier today, in simply asking for more information about Auditorii's plans for Beiteynu, was in itself relatively innocuous.

My question, then, is why does it appear that in the 2-3 months before James became a Moderator, it was okay for player-Moderators to be challenged about second account issues, but that since he has become a Moderator, it is now apparently no longer possible to do so?

[jamescfm]

Players are free to raise concerns about second account authorisation requests, that has always been the case and remains so. The response you received was based on the manner in which you directed a specific question towards a player about what they planned to do with their account. In this case, you were not simply raising an objection or sharing a concern that you had, you were actually asking a player to offer you an explanation of their plans and this is not something that any player owes to you. If Moderation feels that such information would help make a decision, we will ask for this information ourselves.

[Aquinas]

Players are free to raise concerns about second account authorisation requests, that has always been the case and remains so. The response you received was based on the manner in which you directed a specific question towards a player about what they planned to do with their account. In this case, you were not simply raising an objection or sharing a concern that you had, you were actually asking a player to offer you an explanation of their plans and this is not something that any player owes to you. If Moderation feels that such information would help make a decision, we will ask for this information ourselves.

This response is tedious and makes little sense. Also, as you know, Auditorii is not an ordinary player, but a Moderator who is held to (or at least ought to be held to) a degree of accountability. I suggest you allow Auditorii to answer the question about his plans for Beiteynu, and then take the process forwards from there.

[Zanz]

Players are free to raise concerns about second account authorisation requests, that has always been the case and remains so.

Does this apply after the fact as well? If so, I'd like to raise concerns about the recent unquestioning authorization of Auditorii in Beiteynu (and the calling of early elections despite that Auditorii didn't request them himself, which the rules require, afaik). I'd like to know why the following is something moderation didn't feel would help make the decision:

If Moderation feels that such information would help make a decision, we will ask for this information ourselves.

As Aquinas, a player in nearby Malivia felt it would help make a decision, and as I, a player in nearby Jelbe, feel it would, as well. I've learned next to nothing about Auditorii's plans for the nation based on his very vague write up, and worry that a growing power in Beiteynu, a religious state, or a state that RPs itself as advanced in an area that hasn't had an advanced state ICly for centuries could cause disruption to my own RP plans in my first account.

[Aquinas]

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8442&start=580#p162043

I find it regrettable that James authorised a second account for Auditorii in Beiteynu without first obtaining information on what his plans are. This showed a lack of due diligence on James' part, since the concerns surrounding Auditorii are so clearly well-founded. This also showed a lack of the transparency it has always been necessary for Moderators to demonstrate when they are playing the game.

I also noted, by the way, that Auditorii had not filled in his party name at the time his second account was activated by James. I would query whether an ordinary player requesting reactivation of an account would have that request granted if their party name had not been appropriately filled in.

[jamescfm]

Given the history of Moderator conduct related to the second account scheme, I understand that there is a degree of sensitivity about the matter. With that said there is nothing about the process followed in this case that is unusual. The Game Rules state players are required to have a forum account older than thirty days and to use the same email for both of their accounts, these are the only specific requirements and anything else is to be left at the discretion of Moderation.

Players are allowed to express concerns about how the operation of a second account might disrupt their role-play plans but it is unlikely that this is going to be a reason to deny a request, at least not in this case. Early elections are usually called immediately when a second account request is approved, though we might make exceptions in certain cases (for example, if the player hasn't filled out their candidate list yet). In this sense it is similar to the procedure for reactivating the second account, which also does not need to be separately requested.

Perhaps there might be some changes that we could make to the operation of the second account scheme, to avoid this kind of confusion from players. The current procedures afford significant discretion to Moderation in the process, maybe standardising it in some manner would avoid these issues in future. I am open to hearing your feedback on this but it is simply untrue to say that the current rules were not followed in this case.

[jamescfm]

Based partly on what I said regarding robmark's second account request in Dorvik, I am wondering whether it might be worth reconsidering section 10.4 of the Game Rules, which reads:

4. Users that are authorized to have a second account are not permitted to play within the same nation and are generally requested to avoid being on the same continent as their primary account;

When the second account scheme was originally launched several years ago there was no restriction on the geographic proximity of the two countries that a player could play in. I don't necessarily think that we need a rule that stipulates this as a specific factor in Moderation decision-making and think it should be left up to the discretion of the Moderators themselves.

Personally I don't think that two countries being on the same continent really means anything about the potential for role-play in both countries to potentially contradict each other. Moderation has to consider a range of factors when thinking about potential for "conflicts of interest" in role-play but I see that sharing a continent is the main consideration.

Using a couple of examples to illustrate my point. Lourenne is nowhere near Alduria but it would be a potential concern if a player wanted to play in both countries due to the history of the two countries being politically united while I don't really see a reason why it would be a problem for somebody to operate accounts in both Lourenne and Dankuk. Likewise I think it would be problematic for a player to control both Deltaria and Yingdala as they are two of the foremost global powers in recent times whereas I wouldn't see any issue with someone playing in Deltaria and Beiteynu.

In place of the rule in its current form, I think maybe we should adopt something that gives a more general idea about what factors Moderation takes into account in their decision-making since it is clear (even from just reading back through this thread) that some players are confused about how the system works. I would be interested to hear what other players think about this and especially those who have been involved in the second accounts scheme.

[colonelvesica]

Based partly on what I said regarding robmark's second account request in Dorvik, I am wondering whether it might be worth reconsidering section 10.4 of the Game Rules, which reads:

4. Users that are authorized to have a second account are not permitted to play within the same nation and are generally requested to avoid being on the same continent as their primary account;

When the second account scheme was originally launched several years ago there was no restriction on the geographic proximity of the two countries that a player could play in. I don't necessarily think that we need a rule that stipulates this as a specific factor in Moderation decision-making and think it should be left up to the discretion of the Moderators themselves.

Personally I don't think that two countries being on the same continent really means anything about the potential for role-play in both countries to potentially contradict each other. Moderation has to consider a range of factors when thinking about potential for "conflicts of interest" in role-play but I see that sharing a continent is the main consideration.

Using a couple of examples to illustrate my point. Lourenne is nowhere near Alduria but it would be a potential concern if a player wanted to play in both countries due to the history of the two countries being politically united while I don't really see a reason why it would be a problem for somebody to operate accounts in both Lourenne and Dankuk. Likewise I think it would be problematic for a player to control both Deltaria and Yingdala as they are two of the foremost global powers in recent times whereas I wouldn't see any issue with someone playing in Deltaria and Beiteynu.

In place of the rule in its current form, I think maybe we should adopt something that gives a more general idea about what factors Moderation takes into account in their decision-making since it is clear (even from just reading back through this thread) that some players are confused about how the system works. I would be interested to hear what other players think about this and especially those who have been involved in the second accounts scheme.

This is under discussion and consideration as we speak, thank you again for the feedback